Cornell University Library Staff Web Page
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to DRTF Index
First meeting: 17 March 1998
RWA Notes
Members: Ross Atkinson (Chair), David Block, Michael Engle, Janie Harris, Ali Houissa, Patricia O'Neill, Barbara Prior, John Saylor, Yoram Szekely, Jennifer Weintraub. (When we deal with acquisitions issues, Bill Kara and Scott Wicks will also be invited to attend.)
1. Agenda. A copy of the agenda is attached at the bottom of these notes. I had sent this to CU-LIB (it's in my outbox as sent), but apparently it did not make it. We were able to discuss some of the issues from the agenda at this meeting.
2. Group Composition. We went around the table and identified how most members had a particular constituency, whom they will keep specifically informed throughout the evaluation process. The three main groups we will be linking to are (a) the four selection teams (Janie, Yoram, Ali, John), (b) IRPC (Barbara, Michael), and (c) ERC (David). Jen (taking Sam's place) will ensure a continued connection with Mann, and Patricia has kindly agreed to work on the data gathering.
3. Charge. The charge is fairly straight forward: (a) evaluate the utility of the databases to which we presently provide access, (b) identify, compare and assess as many as possible of the databases to which we do not provide access, and (c) come to some agreement on the databases to which we want to provide access in 1998/99. There was little discussion on the charge. Our challenge is clearly to develop a process to get the job accomplished by mid-May.
4. Full-Text Databases. Last year, we specifically avoided full-text databases (except for UMI), preferring to concentrate exclusively on bibliographical databases. We promised ourselves that we would take full-text into account this year. I anticipate there may be rather fewer full-text databases that we consider in-scope than the bibliographic databases. Michael emphasized that there are perhaps three categories of full-text databases: (a) periodical articles attached to bibliographical databases (such as UMI), (b) electronic journals (such as J-STOR), and (c) scholarly resources that are not electronic journals, such as primary literature, or the OED. I confirmed that we should probably be interested in all three categories.
5. Central Funding. We had a discussion, covering much of the ground (much more rapidly) that we covered last year, about the rationale and function of central funding. There are several reasons for central funding, but one of them is certainly to permit us to ramp-up to a digital library of critical mass, without forcing selectors to make choices between more general (and expensive) databases needed for the digital library and traditional materials that clearly serve the requirements of current users. Yoram noted correctly that there is still only one pool of funding that we all depend upon, so that all selectors will pay for all databases, in any case, if we continue to build the central funding from taxing the budget increases. I remain concerned that we still do not have a clear system for deciding what we fund centrally, and what is funded by individual selectors. The main basis for central funding last year was a decision by the Task Force that we would fund centrally the most important databases, based upon input from the selection teams should. That is probably the same process and rationale that we will use this year. Yoram was concerned that we not simply add to the databases which we already have--and other selectors have been concerned about this in the past: there is a danger that centrally funded materials might receive less scrutiny than materials funded in subject lines. A major purpose of this Task Force is precisely to ensure that this does not happen: we will review the desirability of maintaining what we already receive--and we may decide not to receive some materials that we have been purchasing during the past year. David pointed out, on the other hand, that the presence of aggregators means that we do not select each item individually: with materials we definitely want, we will also receive access to databases that we want less--but there is no alternative to this in the present market.
6. Currently Funded Databases. I distributed a list of those databases the previous Task Force agreed to fund centrally. In not all cases did we actually manage to subscribe to some of them (especially in the humanities). Patricia distributed a first draft of a list she is now compiling of centrally and individually funded databases, which she will continue to work on. She also provided us with a list of search figures on the Pi2, InfoShare and CitaDel databases, as well as other databases on the gateway. This kind of information will be very valuable as we begin to evaluate the databases we are currently subscribing to. Members of the Task Force will provide Patricia with input on how to improve the utility of these two spreadsheets.
7. Aggregators and Consortia. Complicating the entire process is the fact that we will be subscribing to many databases through aggregators, and some of these will be available through consortia at reduced prices. John urged that we negotiate with aggregators about the databases they are offering us, as we go about making our decision on a primary aggregator. In addition, there is a considerable amount of information now being exchanged through NERL and through NY State on (mostly planned) opportunities for consortial agreements on high-use databases, and some of these plans may come to fruition in the next two months. Patricia agreed to field all of the discussions in NERL, which I will forward to her, and thus to keep the Task Force current on NERL plans. David Block agreed to take responsibility for tracking discussions about joint purchasing in NY State.
8. Poll. I am assuming that we will want to undertake some kind of poll again this year--especially with respect to currently received databases. I asked the Task Force to consider whether we need to have the same sort of poll that we had last year--which was fully automated (thanks to Bill Jenkins). Perhaps it would be preferable to work through IRPC and the selection teams, rather than doing something entirely online.
9. Action. There were clearly many issues that we did not get to at this first meeting. For the next meeting, which I anticipate will be in ca. two weeks (David Rising will work on a schedule for us), we need to begin to review aggregators, to review current databases and their costs, and to try to work out a rough budget for what we would spend next year centrally on databases, if we kept everything we've got now. Patricia and I will work on gathering as much of this information as possible.
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to DRTF Index
4/6/98 dih